or xoDem vennam, me prcscni au[nor +anu co-eUllOI 01 rlye I'i BJOlllplele VVOI~J, and also of course to the ongoing commitment ofthe University of Toronto Press to finish the monumental process of publishing Frye's complete works (projected 24 volumes) .Denham's subject in the present book is Frye's religious thought. Frye, who gave up church in his thirties but never gave up his (Methodist) ordination, had an enormous appetite for reading (and remembering!) absolutely everything even vaguely &dquo;spiritual,&dquo; from holy Scripture to the latest &dquo;kook book&dquo; on channeling or cosmic voyaging. He once said he found archetypes in the Toronto Metro subway ads. Denham shows here how he also found them in his reading, which Frye commented on at length in his notebooks and diaries. Denham knows this material intimately and refers to it constantly, revealing the sincerity of frye's lifetime desire to be seen as an &dquo;architect of the spiritual world.&dquo;Denham also shows clearly how Frye brings a literary critic's structuralizing vision to religious texts. The intricate systems that Frye said could be discovered in (or which, his critics say, Frye imposed on) literature can, Frye felt, be re-discovered (or imported into) religion, revealing their similar architecture.Denham, no less than Frye, never asks, however, what exactly these structures are built on. What did or could possibly act as a &dquo;foundation&dquo; for the (by definition) foundationless &dquo;spiritual world&dquo;? This gap in Denham's survey leaves open the suspicion that what Frye is actually disclosing in his &dquo;spiritual&dquo; writings is less a map of some transcendental human (spiritual) consciousness as a map of his own mind (white, low-church, middle-class, liberal democrat etc.). In other words, it is Frye's claim (adopted by Denham) for having provided a structure for &dquo;the&dquo; spiritual world which is the problem; that he structures his own and does so fascinatingly is inarguable.Moreover, Denham is unconcerned that &dquo;the&dquo; spiritual world for Frye acknowledges neither native spiritual traditions nor Judaism. For Frye, as for other &dquo;Grand Narrators&dquo; such asJung, Eliade and Joseph Campbell, Judaism, because it is devoid of a saviour, simply lacked narrative completeness: &dquo;I can take no religion seriously... that doesn't radiate from a God-Man,&dquo; he said, rather seriously delimiting the parameters of &dquo;the&dquo; spiritual world.Finally, it is unsettling that Denham never challenges Frye's unwillingness, unlike such contemporary Christian commentators as Rosemary Ruether and Roy Eckhart or more recently Bishop John Spong to confront the challenge of espousing Christianity after the Holocaust, an event he almost never refers to in all of his so-far pub-